Retired
jackslash
Detroit strip clubs
I have retired. Not from strip clubbing (that would be crazy) but from working. With my savings, investments, 401-K, and Social Security, I will have more disposable income in retirement than I did while working.
My monthly Social Security check will go directly into strippers' G-strings. For those of you who are still working and contributing to the Social Security Trust Fund, I want to say, "Thanks."
My monthly Social Security check will go directly into strippers' G-strings. For those of you who are still working and contributing to the Social Security Trust Fund, I want to say, "Thanks."
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
52 comments
Good luck and hope you stick with it. I couldn't deal with my first retirement. Always trying to find something to do. Back to work was better for me. Next time I hope to do better.
Maybe we should plan another Tootsie's trip.
I remember in the past you expressed that you worked really hard and cut out most of the fun when you were younger, so I know you've earned it
Enjoy!
That's the ideology which keeps people speculating.
SJG
Best wishes.
Also, don't spend more than 3% of your savings in any given year.
Enjoy the SC pussy --- save some for the rest of us.
Pretty much what I told him. Why I went back to work. Perhaps I'll try again at 70.
p-king- You crack me up, as in who do you think you are telling people when to collect SS when you don't know exactly when they (or you for that matter) will die. If you collect at 62, you'll live a long time, if you start collecting at 70, you'll croak shortly after your 1st check.
I know some BS artist will try to point out the time value of money and why u should take it early, but the fact is people aren't inclined to invest their benefit check if they draw early. Instead they will piss it away on strippers and since the COLA does not truly keep up with the cost of living you end up relying on other people to take care of you in your 70's and 80's. With the mentality of much of this board, that is quite the lonely proposition to face considering many of people here may not be in a monogamous relationship(wife) to help take care of you in your old age.
Social security is an insurance program, it is not suppose to be your retirement plan. OASDI (social security) stands for old age supplemental disability "INSURANCE"! Once you start viewing it as a proper insurance plan you then begin to see it as something to help insure your old age benefits to keep you from being destitute, and that is all that it should be viewed as, even though we have entitled people out there that say "it's my money I paid into and i deserve it!" No it's not in that context. Its a payroll "tax" that is funded from earnings, just like your federal and state taxes go toward funding several programs, albeit inefficiently. Social security is by far too inefficient and you'll never get the ROR on it like you can investing in your own, but it is what it is so keep in mind to wait to make the decision to draw based on your health, not your financial wants, like strippers. "Preach!"
I started drawing SS this year when I hit 66. Never see the money as it goes right into an investment account. After paying off my house, the funds needed to live went way down.
I figured when andrew hit, I didn't have any real structural damage, just water damage. I could have lived here if I needed to do so. So should another andrew hit, I'll be just fine.
Worse case. I'll by a toy hauler, hook it to my truck, take the Harley, and hit the road.
Maybe that isn't worse case! :)
Minnow -- I'm a pension actuary and I'm just trying to help, that's who I am. Clearly, one size doesn't fit all. Actuarial equivance in SS late retirement increases would be around 4% Getting an 8% per year increase for delaying benefit commencement is a bonus!! Obviously, alternatively, if you're in declining health, take a reduced SS early, find a "10" stripper for extras and spoil the shit out of her.
Given the expectation of a normal or, better yet, above-average life expectancy, like Meat72 says, I advise waiting until later. The government typically wins when the average Joe takes a reduced SS pension early. That's why they don't advertise (and why I tell anyone who wants to listen) about taking an INCREASED benefit by starting late.
Then again, it is your money -- you know what they say about a fool and his money . . .
Many/most Americans seem to be too fucking fixated on $$$ - now – don't get me wrong – I'm a conservative Republican and supa pro-capitalism – but the older I get (45 now) I now think twice/thrice about the efficacy/wisdom of working till you fucking drop and seeing that as a good virtue – so many people now a days are working themselves to death and supa-stressed out and sleep deprivation on use of psychiatric drugs (antidepressants; sleeping pills) is fucking rampant in our society not to mention drinking in order to relax/decompress from stress.
If one is lucky enough to have a job they love that is not too taxing; then I can see working till fucking 70 – but if one's job is very stressful and taxing or just flat-out they hate it; then being in that position to 70 is like a fucking life sentence.
If my needs are met – I rather make less and be happier than fucking trying to squeeze out every little penny and then being too old or in poor health to enjoy it.
As we would all agree – it's a personal decision but $$$ does not trump all as is often seen in the American way.
Have fun spending that SS check on strippers :-)
maybe you can explain this seeming incongruity to me. let’s say i use your example and i have two retirees the same age. now retiree A starts taking payments of $1000 a month beginning at age 66 while retiree B waits until 70 to start taking $1320 per month. so retiree A has $48,000 in his pocket when retiree B starts taking distributions of $320 a month more than retiree A. my math tells me it will take 150 months or 12.5 years for retiree B to catch up and break even with the amount retiree A has received.
(of course if retiree A had simply saved and invested his $48,000 beginning at age 70 getting a reasonable 8% return it would work out to $320 a month and retiree B could never catch up but we don’t need to go there.)
the crux of my question, keeping it simple with no investing etc, is that with a break even age of 82.5 why would the average schmuck delay taking SS payments when the US life expectancy age is 79.5? i’m confused
Dr. Phil: Maybe the average schmuck thinks they're above average.
Basically if you are in relatively good health in your 60's you will statistically have a strong chance to live into your 90's. Playing the game of odds would mean if you have your health u stand to get more out of social security if you delay.
Short of whether someone who draws early and invests, which is not likely to happen, there are also tax consequences from social security. If anyone has taxable assets to draw on to get them to a later benefit date, you can have better control on how big your tax bill is past age 70. If u keep your taxable income low in retirement, then your social security benefits aren't taxed as much compared to if you have higher taxable income. Since social security benefits are added to your income tax base, the idea is to drawn down on your taxable assets(401ks) first and leave your non taxable assets for later in life.
Before any mathematical analysis is considered, the whole pixture comes down to behavioral finance. The analysis does not happen in a vacuum because life happens and people always rationalize ways to spend cash. Since social security is an insurance program it should be viewed as such and therefore analysis should be secondary.
I worked and work to provide for my family. That is a responsibility I chose. I was able to allow my wife to STAY AT HOME with our children. That is nearly unheard of today with the expansion of government, sadly.
I also have enjoyed my work, which is incredibly important.
I did retire at 55, but went back to work at 60. Just got to boring. I am a creature of habit. I started school at 6 and working to some extent at 12. So having a structured life is pretty much ingrained into me.
I'm not saying it is for everyone, but work is important to me. Would be a boring ass world if we were all the same! :)
Anyway, Meat72 stated it well. It is a complex issue that requires more thought than simply "grab it as early as you can". That's all I'm saying . . .
Now, back to your regularly scheduled beaver.
Two bulls are standing atop a hill, one old and one young. There are a herd of cows in the valley below. The young bull says, "Hey, let's run down there and fuck one of them cows!" The wise old bull says, "I have a better idea. Let's walk down there and fuck em all."
But, hey, thanks for your input. (PS- I just fucked a proverbial cow on Wed. the 17th. It was good , but I didn't smoke afterwards because I want to live long enough to fuck more proverbial cows. Nice to get a head start on the old bulls)
Age 62- $2025 month// Age 66- $2663 month// Age 70- $3501 month. If you made maximum social security wages for at least 35 years prior to your retirement date, you will likely get these benefits. Below I crunched some numbers for the breakeven point on the issue of taking SS benefits at age 62 vs age 66, and age 62 vs age 70. The numbers I came up with were 78.69, and 80.97, respectively. Beyond those ages, you'd have been better off delaying benefits to the later age.
The dirty work crunching as follows:
If you start at 62 vs 66, you'll have a $97200 head start on the guy who delayed to 66. But then he'll be gaining on you at the rate of $638/mo which will take him 152.35 months or ~12.69 years to catch up to and subsequently surpass your total benefits.
For 62 vs 70 you'll have a $194400 head start on the age 70 delayer. He'll gain on you at the rate of $1476/mo, which will take him 131.7 months or 10.97 years to catch up to and subsequently surpass your benefits.
I'll admit this methodology is somewhat flawed in that I didn't account for inflation nor figure take home pay (which is different for everyone anyway) into account. Still, the ratios will be the same for 62 vs other ages whether it is 2015, 2019, or 2023. While not perfect, I suspect that my analysis isn't too far off base. As for time value of money, I would suspect that a reasonably moderate rate of return on investments (and/or in conjunction with paying off debts faster) could probably extend the breakeven point 2 or more years beyond my figures.
FYI, I hope all of you start drawing ASAP. That will keep social security solvent for many more decades to come.